Discrimination Cases

This is an action for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4- 21-101 to -1004 ("THRA"). The plaintiff, an associate professor at a state university, applied for promotion to the rank of full professor. While his application was under review, the plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge against the university with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). A short time later, the university denied the plaintiff's promotion based on his alleged lack of high-quality scholarship. The trial court dismissed the action at the summary judgment stage, reasoning that the plaintiff had not produced evidence to rebut the university's stated reason for denying his promotion. This appeal followed. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because there was evidence that the university's administration knowingly violated university policy by reevaluating the merits of the plaintiff's peer-reviewed scholarship. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

A plaintiff-employee states a valid claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where she claims that she was an at-will employee and was fired for filing a good-faith complaint with her employer and with OSHA concerning COVID-19 hazards and a mice infestation in her workplace. In a disparate treatment sex discrimination case, a defendant-employer fails to satisfy its initial burden for summary judgment to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the similarly situated element of the plaintiff-employee's prima facie case where the defendant relies on conclusory assertions that the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that she was treated differently than similarly situated male employees. WITH CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION.

The Court of Claims did not err in granting Ohio State University's ("OSU") motion for summary judgment on the employment discrimination claim or in dismissing the breach of contract claim based on a collective bargaining agreement for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.